1985 PLP 366 (MLD)

On the death of Fazal Muhammad (Gujjar), Lambardar of Patti Fazal Muhammad, of Chak No. 2.79/R. by Tehsil and District Lyallpur, now Faisalabad, learned Collector appointed Muhammad Umar son of Kamal Din respondent No. 1, Lambardar of the estate under rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules, vide his order, dated 20-12-1965. The appointment was challenged before tile learned Commissioner by Shehbaz Khan in appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 11-5-1966 by learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha. Revision against both the orders was dismissed by learned Member, Board of Revenue on 18-7-1967.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by Shehbaz Khan to assail the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of the estate.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It has been contended Ly learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/Lambardar does not own any land in the Patti. Consequently he could not have been appointed as Lambardar. Even on merits it is contended that Shehbaz Khan ranks head and shoulders above his rival, Muhammad Umar. As regards owning of the land in the Patti or the estate, it has been observed by learned Collector in his order, dated 30-12-1965 that the property of Muhammad Umar is worth about Rs.27,

000. It has been further observed in the said order that the estate is Patti Dari village and no land revenue is assessed for this village because it came within the limits of Municipal Committee, Lyallpur. Only Aabiana is stated to be assessed. Similarly, learned Commissioner, while evaluating the merits of the two contestants, observed that the respondent, Muhammad Umar, owned about 45 Kanals of land in the estate. He had also one Ihata in his ownership. Similar are the observations of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.

4. As regards the merits, all the Revenue Officers, from Collector up to the level of Member, Board of Revenue, have found Muhammad Umar better suited for the. appointment of Lambardar. In para. 6 of the Commissioner's order, dated 11-5-1966, it is observed that the respondent, beside, owning 45 Kanals of land in the estate, has been a Lambardar, Zaildar and Sufaidposh. He had a large number of certificates from high ranking Government officials in token of his services rendered to the state. He has been an Honorary Magistrate and also an Honorary Assistant Recruiting Officer. He served as a Senior Vice-Chairman of the District Board, Lyalipur. He is a matriculate and possesses un-blemished record. This all goes to show his personal influence and outstanding ability.

5. In making the appointment questioned in the present writ petition, the Revenue Officials have not violated the Rules relating to the subject. The choice has fallen on the respondent. The competent authorities in the hierarchy of the Revenue Department, after considering tile respective merits of the contestants, selected respondent No. 1 for the appointment of Lambardar, to serve as a link between the residents of the estate and the local administration. The choice of the Collector which has been confirmed up to the Board of Revenue cannot be brought under challenge by the petitioner in writ jurisdiction, particularly, when the petitioner has lawful authority merely on the plea that the respondent did not own sufficient land in the Patti. It has been observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Ghafoor v. The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and another 1982 S C M R 202 that "no one has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and the relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions entrusted to Lambardar." In the present case all competent authorities on the Revenue side i.e. Collector, Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, after considering merits of both the sides have ultimately selected Muhammad Umar respondent for the office in question.

6. As a result of the foregoing discussion; the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are found to be without merit. The writ petition is consequently dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H. B. T. Writ dismissed.